September 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  


« Links Mentioned on the Show | Main | Is God Anti-Gay? »

July 10, 2013


For a rape analogy, wouldn't the scenario need to be modified: she wakes, beaten and raped. Taped to her side is a feeding tube, inserted in her abdomen. She picks up the tube and follows it thru the cabin to find, in the back room, it's attached to the abdomen of an infant - an infant locked inside a sealed but vented in incubator. Attached to the incubator is a timer on a lock box that is running down from 9 months. The tube is threaded thru the timer. She is relatively free to move about the cabin. The note says "I am your rapist. The child is mine. Inside the lock box is a key to the cabin. When the clock runs out, or the tube you are wearing is severed, the lock box will release and you can access the key."

Now, what is she obligated to do? Morally? Legally? Are they the same answer?

I'm pro-life and know what I would do and would urge my daughter to do. But should my daughter be punished by the state if she chooses differently?

This analogy raises the following question, "Does a zygote have the same moral status as a newborn infant?" If you believe life begins at conception, then I assume the answer would be yes. But if this is true, then this seems to imply that women who miscarry or whose bodies cause these zygotes to spontaneously abort must be jailed for involuntary manslaughter. Up to 50% of pregnancies end via spontaneous abortion. If a zygote has the same moral status as a newborn infant, then one cannot excuse it by saying, "It's natural" or "I was not conscious of it." If a mother accidently killed an infant, she would face criminal charges. If a mother's body kills a zygote, and a zygote has the same moral status as an infant, then should she not also face criminal charges?

Let me be clear. I am not for abortion. But at the early stages of a pregnancy, it's not as black and white as I once believed.

Caleb - It's an interesting point you raise. Let me try to further clarify your point.

You state that "If you believe life begins at conception, then I assume the answer would be yes. But if this is true, then this seems to imply that women who miscarry or whose bodies cause these zygotes to spontaneously abort must be jailed for involuntary manslaughter."

While the specific definition of involuntary manslaughter varies by state, a typical definition would be that involuntary manslaughter results from an improper use of reasonable care or skill while performing a legal act, or while committing an act that is unlawful but not felonious. This is a reasonable paraphrase of the Illinois and Colorado statutes and Massachusetts common law.

Do most spontaneous abortions result from improper use of reasonable care or skill while being pregnant? I don't believe so. Therefore, I don't believe this way of arguing causes a moral or legal conundrum.

Caleb, as Scott Klusendorf explains, just because tragic things happens naturally does not give us the right to do them ourselves. Just because a tornado can level a city does not give us the right to nuke cities. I agree with Brian, this isn't a moral conundrum.

You can hear Scott talk more about here if you want: Scott addresses this issue at 18:48 in the interview.

Mark in Columbia OH,

It seems that you offer a scenario that is completely unnatural and this affects our moral intuitions. In the case of pregnancy, the mother's body is designed to carry the baby -- it's a completely natural situation for which the mother is well suited. Furthermore, the natural place for the baby is inside the mother's womb. Carrying a baby to term is not a heroic act but a common part of everyday life.

Caleb, it's important to remember that the Violinist argument concedes the full and equal personhood of the child in the womb. It's intended to focus in very specifically on the question of bodily rights when two human beings are involved. So in this case, the moral status of the unborn is not in question.

(If you're concerned about what would happen legally, it might be helpful for you to look at how we handled this in the past when abortion was illegal. It's not a foreign concept to our legal system.)

"If a mother's body kills a zygote, and a zygote has the same moral status as an infant, then should she not also face criminal charges?"

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what miscarriage actually is. Either the zygote has fatal genetic abnormalities and is biologically incapable of survival, or, there is a biological problem with the mother's body that causes it to fail in sustaining the pregnancy. The big difference between this and abortion is that abortion is an intentional act designed to end a life. It is preventable. Miscarriage hinges on biology and is not preventable.

Drew - I wonder if you read the scenario I was responding to?

So how much of Mary's life is it ok to extort from her in this way?

Six weeks is judge to be ok, apparently.

How much more?

To Mark, unless you have been raped, which, maybe you have, I don't think you can say there is a right or wrong answer. Legal and moral issues are two entirely different things, and each person has different moral beliefs.

Quite honestly, unless you have been in the position to end a baby's life because it will kill you, or it will live with severe pain (for only a week, at best), none of you are able to relate, understand, comprehend, or even BEGIN to form an opinion on the issue, and I say this because you all seem to be men (not in a sexist way, but in a your-body-can't-produce-babies-therefore-you-don't-know-firsthand). I have a strong feeling that if the roles were reversed, and you had to go through the physical pain, the mental anguish of making this choice (because you know, it's SO EASY...), then you wouldn't be so quick to judge others. This "story" does not even make sense since legal obligations are entirely different than moral ones.

It is a personal choice, not one to be taken or decided lightly. However, do not, for one second, think that once a decision is made, that it is easy and the person does not feel pain. And to think that if your 10 year old daughter was raped and you made her carry that baby.... that is just sickening.

To RonH: We actually respond in the paper to the question of whether the moral equation changes if it's longer than six weeks, like nine months for example.

Mark in Columbia MO,

I did read it. Your response doesn't address my point. Mark posted #1, Me #5, Mark #8

You have the woman with a feeding tube connected from her to a baby in an incubator. This seems like a violation of the woman specifically because it is so unnatural. A woman's body isn't designed for this at all.

Taking care of a deserted baby in a snowed-in cabin seems natural and common. Parents do this all the time for their children. So, pregnancy seems more parallel to taking care of a stranger's baby in a cabin than to being unnaturally hooked up via feeding tube to a baby in an incubator.

Ron H,

It's not ok to extort from Mary in this way. The rapist scumbag did this to her and he should be severely punished.

Anonymous: I think I can understand where you're coming from, although I disagree. I don't think being biologically capable of carrying a child through pregnancy is a necessary condition for being able to form a reasonable opinion about whether abortion kills a human being and whether or not we should be allowed to kill human beings in utero.

I absolutely agree that moral and legal obligations do not always overlap. We took great care to point that out in the paper and defend our view that in the precise scenario Steve wrote, Mary should have both a moral and legal obligation to care for the child in the cabin.


Thank you for your response. I will study it before I say more.

By the way, in the 4th line: "your baby" becomes "the child in the cabin". This hints that kidnappers/extortionists might know the baby is not Mary's. Maybe Mary's situation remains the same but is this what you want?

RonH: Yes, in our scenario the woman has been put in an unjust situation, on purpose, by social scientists. We're trying to make the situation analogous to pregnancy from rape.

Drew, Mary's a kidnapping/extortion victim. I don't think she was raped - although the situation is compared to rape because Mary didn't cooperate in creating it.

Josh: I appreciate your attempt to see where I am coming from....unfortunately, you can't, because you do not have a uterus and therefore could not begin to imagine the physical pain and process while giving birth.

You say "don't think being biologically capable of carrying a child through pregnancy is a necessary condition for being able to form a reasonable opinion about whether abortion kills a human being and whether or not we should be allowed to kill human beings in utero." However, I am saying if it would KILL a woman to have the baby, therefore her being INCAPABLE of carrying the child through a pregnancy, then why yes, of course that is a reason to have an abortion. So if your daughter became raped at age 12, and the baby was going to kill your 12 year daughter should she proceed with the pregnancy, are you telling me you are willing to put your 12 year old daughter at risk? Could you live with that? Your point of views are quite offensive, as if women shouldn't have a say in what happens to our bodies. I think each scenario should be between a woman and her doctor, not a man, and this huge elaborate and totally crazy analogy of a woman tied to a tube of a box. Your story just goes to prove that you have no idea what it is like to birth a child (and how could you....just like I have no idea what erectile dysfunction is like, therefore I don't voice my opinions on things I don't know about), and you make the abortion process sound like cold-blooded murder. Not everything is black and white, you cannot compare real life to a woman with a tube. We are not just bodies that give birth (by the way, um, a pregnancy is NOT a "condition"....just FYI.... you make it sound like some horrible disease...), we actually have feelings, brains, and believe it or not, CAN make decisions ourselves. Don't play God. This is 2013, and women have rights. Keep your pants zipped up or wear a wrapper and you won't have to worry it.

I am really scared for our society, because it is men like you that make me fear that we are heading backwards in times to the 1800's. It is men like you that make me fear having a daughter, that you couldn't possibly FATHOM having a daughter being raped and having to go through the birth of a child when she is ten years old. It is scary to think that women's choices are being stripped away from them, and that men like you don't care.

A woman's body is not an object.

If an unborn child is a baby, a human being with the inalienable rights that entails, abortion even in the cases of rape is immoral. Killing a rapist's child because his father is a rapist is punishing the child for his father's crime. This is rather like executing a bomber's family because the bomber killed people.

If the baby were to be born, would you still consider him worthy of murder because his father is a rapist?

As a woman, I'm not saying I would be thrilled about carrying a rapist's baby to term. Neither would I probably be able to raise the child; I would put him up for adoption. But killing a baby makes me complicit in the rapist's crime in the sense that the rapist not only had his way with my body, but with my morals as well.

Anonymous: "Your story just goes to prove that you have no idea what it is like to birth a child"

Anon, have you ever been brutally murdered? Have you ever had your arms and legs ripped off? Have you ever been poisoned to death?

If you haven't experienced these things then you haven't experienced abortion and, by your own standard, you have no right to speak in favor of abortion.

Anonymous, two things, and hopefully since I'm a woman, you'll consider my arguments. First, Neither Josh, nor I, nor any pro-life activist I know of argues that a woman should be forced to give up her life for her child--whether that child is in the womb or outside of it. (Though some women may choose that, even if the law doesn't require it.)

In a case where the child is in the womb and the mother will die if she carries the child to term, that is a case where the competing moral claims are equal (life vs. life). In that case, saving the mother's life is an ethical option, even if they're not able to save the child. It's only in cases where the claim to life on the part of the child is put up against a lesser claim on the part of the mother that the lesser claim should give way to life. What's helpful in Josh's argument is that he helps us to see the special obligation that parents (or de facto guardians) have towards keeping the children in their care alive.

Secondly, nobody would use this scenario to council a distressed pregnant woman, nor does anyone think that pregnancy is a disease. This is merely a philosophical argument (like the Violinist argument) meant to isolate a particular objection given to pro-lifers--that is, the idea that a woman has a right to refuse consent to a child using her body to live. In order to isolate this objection, we use analogies. That's just how philosophy and moral reasoning is done. There is certainly no offense meant to women in this.

We care very much not only for women, but for countless pre-born female children who are having their entire lives stripped from them. They'll never grow up. They'll never lose a tooth. They'll never have a birthday. They'll never get married and have children of their own. They are not objects to be disposed of. And it's this disposal of human beings that is the main issue here, not "women's choices."

Drew, that is a good point.

So if the rapist rapes your 10 year old and it will kill her, or make her likely to kill herself, you are willing to look her in the face and say I choose the baby over you? And if you are so "pro-life" I hope for all that is holy that you are leading the charge for an increase in money to be put towards social programs for AFTER the baby is born (such as food stamps, education, health care, etc.) A "baby" is not a baby until it can live outside the womb...which is not likely to happen much prior to 24 weeks (sometimes sooner but you need a fantastically great hospital) so I disagree vehemently with your definition. Good for you that you would be willing to sacrifice your body but not your "morals" to a rapist....most of us would gladly toss our "morals" and this is where we think you are crazy for thinking we have to. Your morals are your morals, mine are mine, they aren't the same and that's what makes this whole world so fantastic...we aren't meant to be the same.

Eliavy - Yep, been brutally murdered a couple of big deal, lived both times.

I'm sorry Drew, have you had an abortion?

I am not saying that abortion should be used as a form of birth control. I am saying that it should be available as a choice to women in case of an emergency. If you don't believe in it, don't do it. Simple.

If you knew the baby was going to die shortly after birth, and would suffer immense pain before so, would you put your child through that?

Your scenario is horrible because it in no way is even close to comparing real life. You might as well compare monkeys and Diet Coke...which actually, I would rather hear about.

I'm not saying you aren't entitled to your opinion. If men were the ones giving birth you bet your fine butt that this would not even be a topic.

So while we are on topic, fertilized eggs used for vitro fertilization are routinely thrown away if not implanted. So is this wrong as well?

Yes, it's wrong to dispose of human beings, but that is not the topic of the bodily rights argument, so I would ask you not to veer off here right now. If you type "embryo" or "IVF" into the search box here or our main site, you can read about all of that in more depth.

Ok, so if you don't dispose of them, what do you do with them? Keep them in the freezer forever? They can't grow into a human unless they are put inside the woman..... so I don't understand how this makes sense.

Anonymous, I agree with Amy's points. We actually have a lot of common ground if you mainly think abortion should only be available for emergency situations. (It's not clear that that's your view, but if it is, we have a lot of common ground.)

So, just to clarify, are there any abortions that you think are morally wrong?

I have my own morals on what I think is wrong, yes. However, I don't expect others to follow what I think is right and wrong, and I sort of feel like you all KNOW FOR A FACT what is right and wrong in this world. You can't play God. You are not God. If God did not want us to have abortions available to us, then why would he allow it to work and be a possibility?

Honestly, after reading around on this board, I feel sick. Your comments regarding homosexuals, rape and abortions, are disgusting and it is obviously that you think anyone who does not agree with you is going to Hell. This is exactly why I do not attend church; it is the church's way, or you are shunned (or so it seems). Everyone is so close-minded. It is like a cult. Unless you are God, you do not have all the answers. I certainly don't pretend to have them.

I was reading a post from I don't know when, regarding gay marriage, and someone said that homosexuals and heterosexuals have the same rights, and "no one gets to marry the ones they love" and proceeded to compare it to marrying your sibling or father and the fact that you can't. I'm sorry but whoever wrote that, was the worst article I have ever read in my entire life. And yes, heterosexuals DO get rights that homosexuals do not - they get to LEGALLY BE MARRIED. They get BENEFITS. They get to have a SAY IN THEIR SPOUSE'S LIFE.

And the comment to the effect of "how can you take credit if you didn't produce it..." Really??? Way to slap everyone in the face who has been adopted or has adopted. I hope Eliavy doesn't get raped and has to put her child up for adoption like the implied she would do should she be in that situation, but apparently procreation is the only way to go. Nevermind the fact of women who can't physically have children.

Just because you find abortions morally wrong does not mean you have to have one. No one is forcing your legs open and saying you have to have one. I had to put my horse down last summer due to complications that was causing him pain. I know it is a horse, but my God that horse was my life. I chose to put him down so he would not suffer anymore. Does that make me a murderer? You know, I was told that sometimes the right thing to do is the hardest thing to do. I preferred to not see my horse suffer - keeping him alive would have been pure selfishness on my part. Hardest decision I ever had to make, but I don't regret it, because I don't have to see him in constant pain.

I feel like you all pretend to be "good people" and "churchy" people. But to be honest, all I see is hate posts on this blog and it is quite disturbing. You are not good people and you do not get to choose what is right and wrong; God chooses. There is a reason for everything.

Anonymous, I'm very sorry to hear about your horse. I've had to put down a few pets, and that can be so difficult. They can really become a part of the family. :(

I'm confused about why you keep bringing God up in your comments, especially at the end where you said "God chooses." What do you believe about God?

I wish you would stop judging me when you know so little about my character. I wonder what you would have said if three pro-life women wrote this paper.

I'm wondering. Does anyone here know what it is like to have a shrewish wife. If you don't then you cannot possibly FATHOM what it is like. Women need not even bother replying since they have no concept of it.

I'm planning on murdering mine.

Please don't you dare criticize my choice.



I actually adore my wife who is incredibly long-suffering (as she'd have to be to put up with me).

Wisdom -
No I do not know what it is like to have a shrewish wife. However, I could have a shrewish husband. Who is to say that women don't have wives? I'm sure you are aware of gay marriages....? Are you saying that they would not have a concept of it because they are gay and they are not men?

Murdering your shrewish wife would be illegal as well. Abortion is not illegal.

Physically giving birth, or possibly dying as a result of giving birth, or having the baby born in severe pain and later dying, does not really compare to the situation you described. Killing your wife for being annoying is a little different than deciding whether or not to have an abortion, which again, tells me that you are out in left field on this issue.

Everyone has different morals. What you do is between you and God, or you and your husband/wife. Until you are in someone's shoes, you should not judge them. Abortion is an individual choice - which luckily for you, you will never have to make that choice for yourself.

Anonymous, do you really believe that you should never judge someone until you are in their shoes? Is it wrong for me to judge rapists even though I've never experienced what it's like to have violent, sexual urges?

If you agree that there are at least some actions we can rightly judge, what standards do you think we could make for what is worthy of judgement? Because for me, people harming other people is a big one.


Being a fully grown adult male, I obviously possess male parts, and that fact alone probably disqualifies me from making any sort of moral judgment regarding abortion. Further, I have never witnessed an abortion nor have I been aborted myself. I’ve seen pictures and heard horror stories (sometimes from women), but when I recoil, I just remind myself, “You’re a man, get a hold of yourself.” The pain and repulsion usually subside after a few hours.

I do have one question that I’ve wondered about:

If a man is transgendered, and self-identifies as a woman, do they get a say? Perhaps there could be some sort of vote on the matter. Some might say it’s all about plumbing while others probably think they should have a say (that is, if they think men should just stay out of it too, of course).

KWM - You are more than welcome to make a moral judgment regarding abortion...however, the fact is that you are trying to tell others that your moral judgment should be in place of THEIR moral judgment which is apparently where you seem to lose your ability to be rational. Again, unless all of you "pro-lifers" on this board are raising the extremely large amounts of money for the social programs (food stamps, welfare, etc.) that are necessary post-birth for these children, you are full of crap and don't actually have any business saying anything. I'm sick to death of people making moral judgments for others and then after they have gotten their way, turning their heads and saying basically you are now on your own to raise the baby we urged you to have. Also, Josh Brahm - rape is not a sexual urge...its a power thing. Don't be an idiot.


If I raised a million dollars would I have a say? Or would it take two?

How about you promote birth control KWM?

KWM - It takes as much money as it takes for us all to provide basic care for all of these children (food, clothing, shelter, etc.). I can't tell you an amount, which you know, and unless you are actually pushing congress, the powers that be, etc to continue to put larger and larger amounts of money towards these programs, you just don't bear me listening to you because you are full of hot air. Its nice to say you care about life when you actually only care about life until they are born. At that point you all just seem to stop caring which I find ridiculous.

Just an FYI - rape is not caused by "sexual urges." It is a vehicle for their aggression. It is extremely traumatic. It can drive a woman to kill herself. I suggest you educate yourself before making comments.

You say:

If you agree that there are at least some actions we can rightly judge, what standards do you think we could make for what is worthy of judgement? Because for me, people harming other people is a big one.

You say harming other people is a big one. So what if your 10 year old daughter is pregnant and having the baby will harm her? Do you choose your 10 year old daughter or the baby conceived in her? Can you tell me you can look into her eyes and say "sorry, honey, but the baby inside of more important than you are." Do you have any idea how psychologically damaging this is (on top of the rape)?

I do have one question that I’ve wondered about:

If a man is transgendered, and self-identifies as a woman, do they get a say? Perhaps there could be some sort of vote on the matter. Some might say it’s all about plumbing while others probably think they should have a say (that is, if they think men should just stay out of it too, of course).

To answer this question, I can't. I don't have all the answers (I know, big surprise). My point is merely, no man has ever experienced menstrual cramps, giving birth, or any physical relation to being pregnant. I don't think that you fully understand what it is like to be a woman - how scary it can be, and how we have had to fight for our rights for so long - and it doesn't mean that your opinions don't matter - it just sort of feels violating in some way that you could tell us what to do (or not do), with our own bodies. How would you feel if women starting voting on whether or not taking viagra was legal? Do you think women should have a say or no? It is truly scary to be a woman, and none of you could relate because you are men, and even if you hypothetically answer, it doesn't matter - because you will never have to live up to whatever your answer is.

I don't think abortion should be used as a form of birth control. However, I think it is nice to be available in case of an emergency of rape. That is my moral belief. Would you rather have teenagers out there using coat hangers? I am a strong believer in birth control such as the pill. And I hope that if you all are so against it even in the most extreme situations, that you are PRO for birth control methods.


Let’s assume I raise a million dollars and that I care about humans after they are born as well. Let’s further assume I advocate the programs you require I advocate. Then would I have a say?

Just to clarify, if I choose not to care about these humans after they are born, I should just be on your side and advocate abortion “rights”? Do people who are pro-choice care about these humans after birth too? Maybe it just so happens that some pro-choicers don’t really care about humans after birth so they decide to be pro-choice? Not all, of course.

I’m sorry - I get confused with all the rules about body parts, gender, raising money, social advocacy rules, adoption requirements, etc. Clarifying these things helps.

There should be some sort of matrix that you check off boxes to see what you’re allowed to say and believe on this subject. Maybe a flowchart that takes multiple paths. The last box might say, “Congrats, you have a say!” Or “Sorry, you do not fit the criteria necessary to have a say, try again”.

Don't be a smart ass, KWM. Trying to have a legit convo here. Glad to know you take it seriously. Keep thinking with your penis instead of your brain.

This scenario just ran through my mind: you serve on a jury for a murder case. The jury decides whether the evidence for the case meets the criteria for the death penalty. Can the jurors decide or "have a say" about this if they've never experienced the death penalty?

KWM - You want a say? Ok, prove to me that you actually give a crap about people first. Also, just so we can avoid any confusion, most pro-choicers are also pro-social programs, not all I'm sure, but most. Fact is, most "pro-lifers" only care about women having children, they don't care at all what happens to the women and kids afterward. Most also want social programs cut because big government is bad, except when it comes to being up in my vagina or in my marriage, then its fine. What I'm saying is that unless you are ALSO heavily in favor of putting more money into social programs to take care of these women and children you so desperately care about after birth we can't begin to have a rational argument because this is basically a power trip for you. If you are actively pushing for more social program money (which I would be shocked to learn) then I'm at least willing to give you respect for standing behind your actual belief. At that point, you are worthy of this discussion. Until then, if you want a it is, unless it is your body you don't fit the criteria necessary to have a say, try again.

Oh Carolyn, if you are truly pro-life can you actually also be pro-death penalty? Doesn't that make you a hypocrite?

@ Elfers:

Of course a person can be pro-life and pro-death penalty! The pro-life position simply doesn't hold to punishing the baby because of the crime, ignorance, inconvenience involved or most other reasons held out for abortion. A death penalty places proper punishment on the person who commits a crime, if it deserves such a verdict. Those are two entirely different things.

BTW, there are WAY too many generalizations flying around in the comments made by some of the women posting here in this thread! So, just to set the record straight, I am a woman and I find many of their remarks here to be poorly thought out, largely indefensible, and very offensive. I have birthed 2 children so I do have firsthand knowledge of same, but don't feel that that fact should have any bearing upon whether or not a person can have a valid opinion of abortion. To exclude men from that equation is absurd.


Your ranting and raving is just irrational hysterics if we can't take one issue at a time and tend to it. Bringing up everything from A to Z in a post is distracting and confusing, and nothing profitable came come from it. Furthermore, it seems to give you some sense of liberty to bad-mouth anyone here who disagrees with you (and there are plenty of us), and to resort of crass speech right along with it. If you want to have a meaningful discussion of an issue, please do so with respect and civility.


Why are you criticizing me? You yourself have indicated that you don't have a shrewish wife. How could you possibly know what it is like?

Don't judge me.

Carolyn - I have also birthed children (3 to be exact)and think that I am not a societal vessel to do with as society wants. My body is just that, my body. I don't get to tell you what you have to do with yours so stay the hell out of mine. I am pro-choice and chose life, but also haven't been in a situation where I had to think twice about whether or not I wanted, etc the baby. I can tell you right damn now that if I was ever (or God forbid my daughers were ever) raped and was pregnant and wasn't allowed to abort that child I would be doing my damndest to miscarry. That is my justice and God can judge me one way or the other on it and I'm ok with that but you don't get to enter into that equation. I also would NEVER want to have to look into my daugthers' faces at any point in their life and tell them that the baby in them was more important to me than they were. They are my babies first and foremost and whatever is best for them is best for them and that is the end of the discussion. So, I look at it like you are potentially trying to make a decision for me and potentially my children and I am telling you that would have to be over my dead body that I would let that happen. I also think if you are pro-life you are either for all life or not legit. You also better be super pro-social programs or again, your argument isn't based on rational beliefs. If you think you can play God sometimes but not others than you don't actually believe what you say. You can either never judge someone becuase only God can or be ok with judging someone sometimes in which case you have stepped in for God when you think its ok to do so. Its just not your call, nor should it be if you truly believe.

Honestly you are impossible to rationalize with. All I see here is an organized hate group that hides behind religion. And no you can't be pro life and pro death penalty. What a bunch of say to not judge you when you are judging me.

I feel sorry for all of you.

The comments to this entry are closed.